Suzhou woman Hu You, who was stabbed to death while trying to protect Japanese nationals, has been the subject of controversy in China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), often accused of stoking anti-foreign sentiment, initially labeled the incident as a “random event,” but later praised Hu You’s actions. However, they have also summoned individuals who expressed concern for Hu You. At the same time, authorities have started cracking down on extreme online rhetoric, including accounts advocating the establishment of a “contemporary Boxer Rebellion.” Experts are comparing the fate of the late Qing Dynasty Boxer Rebellion to analyze the political undertones behind this incident.
On June 24th, a knife attack occurred at a bus station in Suzhou, injuring a Japanese mother and her child. Hu You, a Chinese passenger on the Japanese school bus who tried to stop the attacker, succumbed to her injuries, sparking widespread public attention. During this time, various online platforms witnessed a surge in anti-Japanese comments and videos inciting hatred.
Social media platforms like Weibo, Netease, Douyin, Tencent, and Phoenix Online have issued multiple notices targeting content that incites Sino-Japanese hostility and extreme nationalism, mentioning accounts promoting “resistance against Japan” and advocating for a modern-day Boxer Rebellion. These platforms have taken measures to suspend or ban such accounts.
The mention of a modern-day Boxer Rebellion by the authorities has raised eyebrows. The Boxer Rebellion was a violent anti-foreign uprising supported by the late Qing government.
In Chinese history, following the defeat of the Qing Dynasty in the First Sino-Japanese War, Western missionaries’ increased presence led to anti-foreign sentiments among the people. In the spring of 1900, these tensions escalated into armed anti-foreign violence known as the Boxer Rebellion, where groups known as the Boxers executed numerous Westerners and targeted churches, causing casualties among Chinese believers.
Regarding Western nations’ interventions, Empress Dowager Cixi’s stance on the matter fluctuated. Initially, she allowed and supported the Boxers in Beijing, leading to the Boxer Uprising, which eventually resulted in the defeat of the Boxers by the Eight-Nation Alliance. Cixi fled Beijing with Emperor Guangxu, issuing orders to suppress the Boxers. The Boxers, once considered national heroes, rapidly turned into vilified criminals.
Feng Chongyi, an associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney, noted that the CCP’s manipulation of anti-American and anti-Japanese sentiments served a pragmatic purpose. The CCP criticized the United States due to perceived threat, despite past support. On the other hand, they exploited historical grievances against Japan to consolidate power through inciting anti-Japanese sentiment.
He believes that the CCP’s current usage of nationalism mirrors the strategies employed by the late Qing Dynasty against the Boxer Rebellion.
“With economic collapse and rising discontent among the people, the CCP is intensifying its nationalist propaganda to deflect blame onto foreign entities. Many citizens have embraced this narrative, resorting to extreme acts like stabbing foreigners, reflecting the same blind xenophobic mindset as the Boxer Rebellion, which aligns with the official nationalist propaganda,” Feng Chongyi analyzed.
However, as the CCP still relies on Western technology, markets, and investments to sustain its power, it must strike a balance. If the authorities perceive the Boxer Rebellion narrative going too far, they will shift focus towards maintaining stability.
Feng Chongyi pointed out that the CCP is caught between fostering nationalism to bolster its rule and preventing Western ideologies from seeping into China. Amid instances of civilians resorting to extreme violence against foreigners – akin to the Boxer Rebellion’s blind xenophobia – and the official nationalist propaganda, the situation has become complex.
“Youth who have been indoctrinated with nationalism by the CCP are already labeled as the ‘contemporary Boxer Rebellion.’ Nationalism, in itself, is a double-edged sword,” he said.
Lai Rongwei, Chief Executive Officer of the Taiwan Inspirational Association (TIA), emphasized that nationalism is a double-edged sword for any country. While it can unite people and garner support for the government, excessive nationalism can breed extreme hatred and even terrorism. “Once nationalism spirals out of control, it may even turn against the CCP central authority,” Lai noted.
Drawing parallels to the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, who eventually turned against each other, resulting in chaos and stagnation across the nation, Lai highlighted the potential dangers of unchecked nationalism.
He argued that the intertwining of nationalism, public safety concerns, and China’s faltering economy ultimately points towards the true perpetrators responsible for the structural issues affecting society.
“The judiciary, public security, economy, and media are all under CCP’s control. In light of the CCP’s primary concern being ‘stability above all else’, it is likely this societal security incident will be left unresolved,” Lai said.
In the midst of the incident, some Chinese citizens paying respects to Hu You at the bus station where the attack occurred faced harassment from plainclothes officers. Additionally, a citizen in Suzhou was summoned by the police for sharing news about the attack on the Japanese nationals and was asked to sign a pledge not to discuss Hu You’s heroic sacrifice or cause any disturbances.
Feng Chongyi highlighted the authoritarian nature of the regime, wherein any form of grassroots organization is met with repression. He noted that even Marxist groups in universities face suppression whenever there’s organized action, as the CCP fears losing control.
Chinese media reports and official documents have skirted around the root causes of the incident. A screenshot of online discussions revealed a defense strategy proposed by a lawyer for the assailant, emphasizing the need to delve into the criminal’s motivations and thought processes that led to the attack.
Feng Chongyi remarked that such requests by the lawyer are unlikely to receive a response from the authorities, as investigating the ideological origins would inevitably expose the regime’s inherent xenophobia and rejection of Western values.
Lai Rongwei insisted that the incident is not solely about nationalism but also a public safety issue. Any attempt to scrutinize the case would lead to systemic discussions, implicating the CCP in the larger societal malaise. Given the regime’s leanings towards maintaining stability at all costs, the unresolved nature of this security incident appears inevitable.
As external observers note the CCP’s ambiguous stance throughout the incident, it raises questions about the regime’s underlying motives and manipulations. The CCP’s reluctance to address the root causes hints at a deeper reluctance to confront the structural issues that plague society, potentially pointing towards the regime itself as the primary culprit.
Ultimately, the incident in Suzhou involving Hu You’s tragic sacrifice serves as a microcosm of the complexities surrounding nationalism, authoritarian control, and the precarious balance between regime stability and societal unrest in contemporary China.